Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as scope limitations, response behavior, or access requirements. No contradiction exists, but no value is added beyond the structured annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and avoids all filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a describe-only tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description adequately communicates the scope (MISO PRA capacity-market fields). However, it lacks any usage guidance or context about how the described fields relate to query counterparts, which slightly reduces completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers all inputs. The baseline of 4 applies; no additional parameter explanation is needed or provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action (describe) and specific resource (MISO PRA capacity-market fields), enumerating field types: planning-year, season, zone, parameter, and citation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_power_capacity_market_pjm_v1 and describe_power_capacity_accreditation_miso_v1.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related query tools. It only restates the tool's purpose without contextualizing selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.